BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> MOO JUICE (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2006] UKIntelP o07006 (15 March 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o07006.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o07006, [2006] UKIntelP o7006

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

MOO JUICE (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2006] UKIntelP o07006 (15 March 2006)

For the whole decision click here: o07006

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/070/06
Decision date
15 March 2006
Hearing officer
Mr D Landau
Mark
MOO JUICE
Classes
29
Registered Proprietor
Almighty Marketing Limited
Applicant for Invalidity
Milk Link Limited
Invalidity
Section 47(1) based on Section 3(1)(b), (c) & (d)

Result

Section 47(1) based on Section 3(1)(b), (c) & (d): Invalidity action failed.

Points Of Interest

  • The applicant appealed to the Appointed Person. In his decision dated 29 November 2006 (BL O/341/06). The Appointed person upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

Summary

The applicant’s main submission was that MOO JUICE were descriptive words used in common parlance as slang for milk. However, most of its evidence was from American dictionaries and other evidence from internet sources, some of which post dated the date of registration 4 December 1995, indicated that use of the term MOO JUICE was mainly in America and Australia. There was little or no evidence that the term was in use in the UK either as a descriptive or slang term.

The Hearing Officer considered the evidence filed by both parties but concluded that despite the applicant’s best efforts there was little evidence to suggest that the term MOO JUICE would be recognized or used by traders or consumers in the UK. The Hearing Officer went on to find that the invalidity action failed under Section 3(1)(b), (c) and (d).

Originally the opposition included a ground under Section 3(6) - Bad Faith - but this ground fell away during the course of the proceedings and the Hearing Officer saw no need to consider evidence filed in relation to this ground in his decision.


About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010